BMJ Seeks Dismissal of Wakefield Lawsuit

Citing a Texas state law intended to protect journalists and others from frivolous litigation, BMJ has asked a Texas court to throw out a defamation suit by Andrew Wakefield, MBBS, against the journal, its editor-in-chief, and a freelance writer.

The suit stemmed from articles written by investigative journalist Brian Deer and published last year in BMJ, along with commentaries by the journal's editor-in-chief, Fiona Godlee, MB, BChir, MSc. They had slammed a now-infamous 1998 paper in The Lancet by Wakefield and a dozen colleagues that suggested childhood measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations had caused autism-like symptoms in 12 children.

Deer, who had been investigating the research for many years, uncovered what he said were discrepancies between the paper's descriptions of the 12 children, and their medical records, and some of their parents' recollections. He also reported that Wakefield had taken undisclosed payments from lawyers preparing product liability lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

The Lancet retracted the paper by Wakefield and colleagues in 2010, by which time most of Wakefield's co-authors had already repudiated its conclusions.

In January, Wakefield filed suit against BMJ, Deer, and Godlee in Texas, where he now lives. He charged that the articles were full of errors and misrepresentations, promising to "show that it is Deer, Godlee, and BMJ who have provided misleading information regarding these 12 children's histories."

BMJ said its lawyers had now filed a motion seeking the suit's dismissal, citing a Texas statute that discourages "strategic litigation against public participation," or SLAPP. The term refers to litigation that is intended primarily to silence legitimate criticism from journalists, whistleblowers, or community activists by forcing them to spend time and money defending themselves in court.

Texas is among several states that have enacted anti-SLAPP laws that provide for early dismissal of suits that have no chance of succeeding on their merits. In this case, BMJ asserted, Wakefield's status as a "public figure" under U.S. law makes it essentially impossible for him to win his suit.

As a public figure, Wakefield must show that BMJ, Deer, and Godlee knew their allegations against him were false or that they acted with "reckless disregard" for their accuracy.

Under the anti-SLAPP statute, according to the journal, Wakefield must now provide clear and convincing evidence for his claims. If he fails and the suit is dismissed, the statute requires him to pay the defendants' legal expenses.

The journal said it was also requesting that the court issue orders preventing Wakefield from filing additional suits.

The U.K.'s General Medical Council had stripped Wakefield and one of his Lancet co-authors, John Walker-Smith, MD, of their medical licenses in 2010, largely on the basis of Deer's investigations. Last week, a British court reinstated Walker-Smith's license, stating that the council's finding of serious professional misconduct "was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion."

That ruling does not affect Wakefield's status. Walker-Smith retired in 2001.

MedPageToday is a trusted and reliable source for clinical and policy coverage that directly affects the lives and practices of health care professionals.

Physicians and other healthcare professionals may also receive Continuing Medical Education (CME) and Continuing Education (CE) credits at no cost for participating in MedPage Today-hosted educational activities.